نسبت رقمی، هوش هیجانی و سبک های فرزندپروری خشونت زنان را پیش بینی می کند

The contributions of digit ratio (2D:4D), emotional intelligence (EI) and parenting styles to social aggression were examined. Females (n = 215 emerging adults) completed 5 aggression measures, an EI measure, 2 parenting measures, and had their hands measured. Aggression correlated with each of the predictors. Left hand 2D:4D, EI, and parental authoritarianism resulted in the most robust model for predicting aggression. Implications are discussed.

Aggression, defined as behavior intended to harm another, has been argued to be sexually dimorphic, with males displaying higher rates (Archer, 2009). Research supporting this, however, has focused on operationalizations emphasizing overt physical/verbal aggression, which are typical forms of male aggression. By contrast, female aggression is typically social/relational and includes exclusion, gossiping, and/or friendship manipulation (Underwood, 2003). When aggression is reconceptualized as such, females appear more aggressive. Thus, rather than being sex-typed, aggression may manifest in sex-typical forms, with males displaying, on average, higher physical/verbal aggression and females displaying, on average, higher social/relational aggression.

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factor (PAF) with oblique (promax) rotation was conducted on all 12 aggression subscales (see Table 1 for means). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested the sample was factorable (KMO = .790) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ2(66) = 768.81, p < .001. Cattell’s scree plot indicated a two factor solution. Initial eigenvalues showed that these factors explained 37.44% and 12.02% of the variance respectively. Three items (DIAS physical aggression, SRI messaging, SRI photos) had communalities below .3, and were therefore eliminated. PAF using promax rotation was conducted with the remaining 9 subscales. All items had primary loadings above .5 (see Table 2 for rotated factor loadings). Factor 1, “Social Aggression” had an eigenvalue of 3.95, accounting for 43.92% of the covariation. Factor 2, “Overt Aggression” had an eigenvalue of 1.44, accounting for 15.99% of the covariation. Factor scores were computed for both factors; given the focus on social aggression in the current study, only Factor 1 is included in the main analyses. This factor had high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha of .87.